The central legal point established in the judgment is the precedence of a partition deed executed prior to a settlement deed, as well as the importance of evidence in proving the execution and registration of such deeds.

1. These two appeals are arising out of two suits in which, one suit in O.S.No.177 of 1987 filed by Muniammal and Backiam against Lakshmi and others for declaration that the settlement deed dated 17.10.1984 registered as document No. 3953 of 1984 in respect of 'A' and 'B' schedule properties as null and void and to declare that the plaintiffs are entitled for possession and enjoyment and another suit in O.S.No.224 of 1989 filed by Lakshmi and others against Muniammal and others for partition and separate possession.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as per their rank and status shown in the original suits.

3. The brief facts leading to the second appeals are as follows:

'A' schedule property in the suits was allotted to one Kandasamy during the partition among the brothers and he was in possession and enjoyment of it till his death in the year 1982. He died intestate and after his death, the first defendant Lakshmi (O.S.No.177 of 1987), who is the wife of Kandasamy along with her three children, who are the defendants 2 to 4 namely, Selvi, Savithiri and Gandhimathi; and Ramayee ammal, the mother of Kandasamy are jointly enjoying the 'A' schedule property. The said Ramayee ammal, who had 1/5 share in the 'A' schedule property, out of affection towards her two daughters by name, Muniammal and Bakiyam (who are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.177 of 1987) settled her share in favour of her daughters on 17.10.1984 and the same was registered on 18.10.1984. Since then, the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the property. The defendants, knowing about the execution of the settlement deed executed by Ramayee ammal in favour of her daughters, took Ramayee ammal to their place and got executed a partition deed fraudulently and registered it on 22.10.1984, as if the same was executed on 13.10.1984, so as to nullify the registered settlement deed executed by Ramayee ammal in favour of the plaintiffs on 17.10.1984. In so far as 'B' schedule property is concerned, the plaintiffs claim 1/12 share as alternate plea, if the 5th defendant, who is the brother of Kandasamy, denies the partition between their brothers.

4. The defendants have disputed the partition between Kandasamy and his brother regarding the suit schedule property and also the claim of the plaintiffs that the 'A' schedule property was allotted to Kandasamy and enjoyed by Kandasamy, his wife, mother and children. They have denied the execution of the settlement deed by Ramayee ammal on 17.10.1984 in respect of' A' schedule property and also her right to settle the same. The allegations made against the defendants that they have fradulently created the partition deed and got it registered on 22.10.1984 to nullity the settlement executed on 17.10.1984 by Ramayee ammal, are also denied. Similarly, the alternate relief of 1/12 share in the 'B' schedule property has also been denied and the same was disputed by the defendants in their written statements.

5. The specific case of the defendants is that the suit properties were originally owned by Appachi gounder and his sons Kandasamy and Muniappan. Appachi gounder died in the year 1977 leaving behind his wife Ramayee ammal, sons and daughters. Kandasamy died in the year 1982. After the death of Kandasamy, the defendants 1 to 5 are in possession and enjoyment of the properties, which was bestowed on them through a release deed of their father Appachi gounder executed on 23.3.1944. After the death of Kandasamy gounder, the properties were subjected to partition on 13.10.1984. As per the partition deed, 'A' schedule property was allotted to the 5th defendant and the 'B' schedule property was allotted to defendants 1 to 4 and the plaintiffs, who are the legal heirs of the deceased Kandasamy. Items 3 and 4 in the 'C' schedule property were allotted to Ramayee ammal, till her life. The defendants 1 to 4 and the 5th defendant each gave Rs.5000/- per stripe and a total sum of Rs.10,000/- was given to Ramayee a